University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. PEMCO AEROPLEX EE-AL-0065
Docket / Court 2:00-cv-02762-WMA ( N.D. Ala. )
State/Territory Alabama
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
The Birmingham office of the EEOC brought this suit against Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., a Birmingham aerospace and defense company, in September 2000 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The complaint alleged that in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ... read more >
The Birmingham office of the EEOC brought this suit against Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., a Birmingham aerospace and defense company, in September 2000 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The complaint alleged that in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pemco subjected a class of African American employees to a racially hostile work environment. In December 2000 the case was consolidated with a private suit for discovery purposes only. The court granted summary judgment to Pemco in December 2002, after which the EEOC gave notice of appeal in February of 2003. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded the case back to the district court in January 2005. The case was then settled by entry of a consent decree in April 2007.

The consent decree included non-harassment and non-retaliation clauses, required Pemco to develop an anti-discrimination policy, as well as a complaint and investigation policy to handle future complaints of racial discrimination, and also required Pemco to conduct annual surveys amongst its employees regarding the implementation of the decree. Pemco also agreed to post an anti-discrimination notice and to institute anti-discrimination training and team-building exercises for all employees. The decree contains record-keeping provisions and requires scheduled reporting to the EEOC on compliance. Additionally Pemco was required to pay $390,000.00 to settle the claims of the individual class members. In the event that either party finds non-compliance, it is to give the other party twenty days to remedy the problem and then seek court enforcement. The decree is in effect for three years.

Kevin Wilemon - 06/06/2008


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Content of Injunction
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Discrimination Prohibition
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Monitoring
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Recordkeeping
Reporting
Retaliation Prohibition
Discrimination-area
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Discrimination-basis
Race discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
General
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
Defendant(s) Pemco Aeroplex, Inc.
Plaintiff Description Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations EEOC
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Damages
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration 2002 - 2005
Case Closing Year 2002
Case Ongoing No
Case Listing EE-AL-0102 : Thomas v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc. (N.D. Ala.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform
Written: Mar. 01, 2008
By: Nancy Levit (University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law)
Citation: 49 B.C. L. Rev. 367 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach
By: Susan Sturm (Columbia Law School)
Citation: 101 Colum. L. Rev. 458 (2001)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
2:00-cv-02762-WMA (N.D. Ala.) 07/12/2007
EE-AL-0065-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 09/28/2000
EE-AL-0065-0001 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Motion to consolidate [DENIED BY COURT] 02/15/2002
EE-AL-0065-0021 PDF | Detail
Memorandum Opinion 12/13/2002 (2002 WL 32956277) (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0065-0004 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 12/13/2002 (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0065-0005 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion 09/13/2004 (383 F.3d 1280)
EE-AL-0065-0023 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Untitled 10/03/2005 (546 U.S. 811)
EE-AL-0065-0024 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Memorandum Opinion and Case Management Order 12/05/2005 (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0065-0009 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Consent Decree 04/16/2007
EE-AL-0065-0010 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
EEOC Press Release 05/31/2007
EE-AL-0065-0011 PDF | Detail
Judges None on record
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers None on record
Defendant's Lawyers None on record
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -